You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Good luck to you guys ... hope the insurance companies don't rape us all because of this (lost profits ... boo hoo ... ****ers!).

This is just one of the many reasons why I would never buy a house newer than 20 years, or in a new development. Way too many variables, and unless you're there to personally supervise construction, you KNOW conrnes are being cut. Profit margin is king these days in construction. Quality and pride in work unfortunally come a distant second.

Houses older than 20 years have more chance of having a tree going through the foundation, or a sinkhole under it, windows / roof that leaks, or well hidden previous damage , so I don't agree with that strategy.

Scott I hope your proceedings go according to plan. Be frank with them though; do NOT take on additional risk of something getting repaired on someone's word; get an addendum to your agreement instead.

Saying that any older house is better than any newer house seems pretty foolish. There were bad houses built 40 years ago and bad houses being built now, just like good houses.

Guess nobody here has been in a 100 year old farmhouse that has air flowing right through it, or a 40 year old house (think every old house on pleasant park) with aluminum wiring, poor foundations that are now crumbling away, with maple tree roots growing through the sewer drains.

I think the only drawback to a new house is if it's in a new neighbourhood that used to be swampland, like a percentage of Kanata houses. It takes years for underground water tables to shift, usually until the source of the water is diverted. As long as development in the area continues, the chances of underground water flooding diminishes.

The land my house is on is dry, fortunately. The builder was a wanker, but the location is great. I wouldn't want to live there in 20 years though.

While is some cases an older house might be better built, I'd have to agree with Jay. Regardless of how well built it was, things get old, roofs need replacing, window seals go, foundations crack etc etc.

I'd much rather a newer house of good build quality. Not to mention you get the advantages of newer and in most cases better build material technology and more up to date building codes.

In a newer house you're getting better window surrounds, better insulation, better wiring standards (ie. no aluminum wire, GFI's around sinks, breakers vs fuses), Higher efficiency furnaces and air conditioners, and just the plain fact that in a newer house you've got a pretty good chance nothing is gonna wear out with age any time soon.

Plus, 20+ years ago, just like today, there were plenty of builders doing crappy work, just as there are plenty doing great work. So I wouldn't use age of a house to judge if it's "better" or not.